Like Pascal's wager, I'd prefer to worry about climate occurring and do something about it and be wrong, than do nothing, and find climate change was real… the first scenario leaves us with more efficient industry and pollution control and energy use - the second leaves us well and truly stuffed.
What sort of world do you want to leave your kids?

An industry talking point (troll?) that cherry picks a time span starting at an abnormal spike in temperature. Below is a link to a short display of how this comment is an example of how to mislead with statistics.

The climate changes all the time and we have to adapt. Given there has been no warming in 16 years, it's past time we focus on that adaptation and less on our CO2 emissions which increasingly appear to be unrelated to any change.

Satellites and computers allow us to more precisely measure the impact of a warmer climate on our planet, but we shouldn't be alarmed by the changes we see. We shouldn't behave like primitive peoples assigning fanciful reasons for changes in weather or climate and believing we can somehow create a desired outcome through some kind of behaviour or sacrifice.

“No warming in 16 years”? Well, then, I suppose the US Navy considering creating a new fleet for the newly exposed Arctic Ocean is a result of “no warming in 16 years”. I suppose the oil companies planning to drill for oil in that same newly exposed Arctic Ocean (exposed due to Global Warming) is a result of “no warming in 16 years”.

I suppose that the fact that the month of October 2012 was the 332nd consecutive month of hotter temperatures was the result of “no warming in 16 years”. (Hint: 332 months divided by 12 is over 27 years.)

QUOTE:
“Grist.org’s Phillip Bump dug through NOAA's latest State of the Climate report and discovered this nugget, emphasis his:
“The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63°C (58.23°F). This is 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature. The last below-average month was February 1985. The last October with a below-average temperature was 1976.

“As Bump translates, that means that anyone out there 27 (and two-thirds!) or younger has never lived through a month that saw global temperatures dip below average. For what it's worth, the warmest October on record came in 2003 and the coldest occurred way back in 1912.

“Bump has more on the numbers here, which you should go check out for yourself. But in our need to add something of our own (or, perhaps more accurately, our desire for a Friday afternoon spin on Wikipedia) that means the following people are among those who have never seen a colder-than-average month: Michael Phelps, Carly Rae Jepsen, Mischa Barton, Ethan Peck and Lady Gaga.” UNQUOTE

Some “Denialists” do not “deny” per se, but say we can “adapt”. In the past, the human race “adapted” by migration. In Scientific American Magazine (August 2010), it was reported that 160,000 years ago, a terrible Ice Age covered Europe and even most of Africa. The humans at the time migrated from central Africa to the coast of what is now South Africa, where they survived. But here is the important number: Through DNA analysis, it was calculated that, 160,000 years ago, the world’s “human” population (not counting Neanderthals) consisted of only 2,000 (two thousand) breeding individuals. (So the total population was about 10,000 or less.)

Migration today, with a human population of 7 billion, could pose problematic, considering there is a lot less empty space in which to migrate to.

Each year, the concentration of CO2 in the air increases by about 2 to 3 PPM (Parts Per Million). It was 280 PPM in 1780, when the Industrial Age began. It is now 391 PPM. (http://co2now.org/ ) NASA’s Dr. James Hansen said that we passed the danger level of 350 PPM a long time ago.

But please, just go on thinking that there has been “no warming in 16 years”. Don’t let me burst your bubble of ignorance.

“And as Weather Underground’s Jeff Masters notes, that means drought — which can be far more damaging than a superstorm.

“[S]hockingly, Sandy is probably not even the deadliest or most expensive weather disaster this year in the United States — Sandy’s damages of perhaps $50 billion will likely be overshadowed by the huge costs of the great drought of 2012. While it will be several months before the costs of America’s worst drought since 1954 are known, the 2012 drought is expected to cut America’s GDP by 0.5 – 1 percentage points, said Deutsche Bank Securities this week. …”

And the Denialists say if we try to address climate change “it could hurt the economy”!

Deny this:
I want the Economist to find us the IPCC warning that isn't peppered in maybes.
Not one single IPCC warning says it "WILL" happen, only "MIGHT" happen and "COULD" happen so how could we be at the point of no return from a climate crisis...............maybe? Only a comet hit could be worse so we need “WILL” or “WON’T” from the world of science before we condemn billions of helpless children to their CO2 graves.
HELP MY HOUSE COULD BE ON FIRE MAYBE?

Meanwhile, the entire world of SCIENCE, lazy copy and paste news editors and obedient journalists, had condemned our kids to the greenhouse gas ovens of an exaggerated "crisis" and had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run “CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS” to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 26 years of insane attempts at climate CONTROL.

All evidence points to the world of science exaggerating crisis, not to mention the lazy copy and paste news editors and pandering politicians. It wasn’t a lie or a hoax, it was a consultant’s wet dream come true and the overestimation of CO2’s effects has done to journalism and science what abusive priests and suicide bombers did for religion.

Recently there was an interesting law case in Italy: Scientists predicted that the earthquake would not be very intense and it would not lead to casualties. They were wrong and had to go to court.

Scientists for the first time had to take responsibility for the science they produced.

So we have somebody in the guise of De Rosso telling us his believes and wants the majority to spend money stopping continents drifting, influencing Gravitation, stop the earth spinning and regulate the sun by influencing life essential CO2 levels?
First question: Are you really a proper scientist?
Second question: Do you accept future responsibility?

We will want the money back from this scientist how make us build dams instead of feeding children on this planet.
And we have now a place to go to - Italy.

Interestingly another science "story" about faster than light neutrinos came from Italy and questioned Einstein. The press including the economist fell for that although even A level students in Physics already know that time is not constant (time dilatation). In reality a Physics lab was probably threatened to be closed and a sensation had to be found quickly.

It is likely that weather events will be more extreme due to warming due to excessive CO2, and ever increasing amounts of that otherwise natural and necessary substance. Constructive action is needed that does not require cancelling of the Industrial Revolution as would seem to be the intent of the most strident campaigners against use of fossil fuels. While some good sense and creativity could be effective in reducing fossil fuel usage, the basis of our prosperity is the use of energy from such fuels. Notwithstanding benefits of direct attention to this problem, other kinds of meaningful action might be considered.

In the category of drought, and flood, an advanced country could take action that would eliminate harmful effects of global warming and serve to some extent to reverse the CO2 trends. This could involve great expansion of agricultural area based on freely available irrigation water that requires managing water on a continental basis, or just in the USA if that is as far as it can go. There are vast areas of under-used land that are such only because of lack of reliable water supply.

A recent report on the Dust Bowl in the USA by Ken Burns on PBS reported that 4 million acres were bought by the US government to put to growing permanent grassland. However, that same documentary also reported that the dust bowl situation was actually ended and kept under control by extensive irrigation. We should certainly put that 4 million acres back to higher use, but this is a very small part of the land that could be bettter used.

The report also warned that the Ogallala aquifer that supplies wells for that irrigation is being depleted. But rather than fearing the affects of irrigation, a country that knows well how to manage water to charge such aquifers should get busy with constructive solutions. This means of course that the kind of solutions urged by environmentally sensitive but technically inept persons, such as those given a voice by Ken Burns, must be ignored.

It says more about today's media, who uncritically report claims without checking veracity. If the media had good science editors, you wouldn't have heard about those impossible neutrinos.

Also the fact that you don't seem to know the difference between a single aberrant claim about neutrinos and the results of a body of research that comprises thousands of peer-reviewed papers produced over decades can be blamed on the media. Apparently you don't see how compliant media feed you propaganda on climate change.

And regarding responsibility: if the science is proven right (and so far it has, with temperatures up, polar ice melting, sea levels rising, etc.), will you take responsibility for the absence of dykes when disaster strikes? You are not sure of the science, yet you are so sure mainstream science is wrong that you argue against taking action. That doesn't seem rational.

FREE people have spoken:
*Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).
*Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations.
*Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses.
*In all of the debates Obama hadn’t planned to mention climate change once.

Not one single IPCC warning says climate “crisis” without “maybe” and “could be”….and REAL planet lovers welcome the good news of scientific exaggeration of climate “crisis” that was threatening billions of helpless children.

Part 2 of 2
Mr. Lucrecius:
You write:
“Recently there was an interesting law case in Italy: Scientists predicted that the earthquake would not be very intense and it would not lead to casualties. They were wrong and had to go to court.

Scientists for the first time had to take responsibility for the science they produced.”

That’s an interesting comment from someone who apparently does not think that Global Warming will lead to something serious such as “casualties”.

Since the droughts, floods and the Superstorm apparently did not impress you, are you accepting Legal responsibility if Global Warming leads to something like (A) A massive sea level rise inundating the world’s coastal cities, or (B) the shutdown of the Gulf Stream (due to melting ice), plunging the Globe into a new Ice Age?

Mr. Lucrecius, writing that dealing with Global Warming means “
stopping continents drifting, influencing Gravitation, stop the earth spinning and regulate the sun” is just a tad disingenuous, don’t you think? If you go to NASA’s websites, you will see that none of those items are responsible for the temperature increase and severe weather events. Even if the Sun WERE getting hotter, we would have to decrease CO2 even more, since the increase in CO2 would trap that increased Solar Heat. We would want to decrease CO2 to mitigate that.

Finally, the “faster than light neutrinos” appears to be an honest error by the Large Hadron Collider. The Collider is not “threatened” with closure, despite what you write.